"Digger" > wrote in message
...

This will be my last post in this thread. You are digging (no pun
intended) in your heals to support rationales that are nonsensical.

> >You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
> >judgement.
>
> There's no need for you to start getting aggressive
> and rude.

I'm being serious, not rude. If you can't understand the treatment
involved in exploiting dairy cows is not in their best interest (to
say the least) then your moral judgement must be called into question.
Besides, I gave you the benefit of doubt by suggesting that you
consult a dictionary since ignorance can be the only other reasonable
explanation.

> >Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.
>
> Yours. By disqualifying human milk gained exploitatively
> as proper vegan fare, you've also disqualified all those
> infants from being vegan.

Veganism is a personal choice. It's not something that can be imposed
in a realistic or meaningful way. Since an infant is incapable of
making that sort of decision on it own then it can't be vegan.

> >I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.
>
> And thereby, according to your rule, non-vegan. I'm
> thanking you because you've effectively demonstrated
> my point. Human milk, though not inherently cruel or
> exploitative to procure is a non-vegan food if procured
> in a cruel or exploitative way, according to you. That
> being so, you have no rational basis on which to promote
> it at the expense of other milks as vegan fare.

I did not "promote [exploited milk] at the expense of other milks as
vegan fare". Nowhere have I said that. In fact, I have repeatedly
stated the opposite. Read carefully: exploited milk is not vegan fare.

> >You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up...
>
> There's no need to be rude.

I'm not being rude. You are (purposefully?) not seeing the big picture
regarding exploitation and veganism. Instead, you are trying to find
any little IMPOSSIBLE exception that might salvage your argument.

> If non-fertilised eggs can be
> sourced ethically as described above, why doesn't Mr.
> Falafel include them in his vegan recipes? Could it be
> that another component is there that disqualifies these
> eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
> exploitation?

You will never find "non-fertilized eggs that have been sourced
ethically" as an ingredient in any of Mr. Falafel's recipes. As much
as you want to deny it, there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.

> >No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is based solely
on
> >exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.
>
> Then what of the meat sourced from animals that haven't
> been exploited, such as those which die of old age, or even
> road kill; would that meat qualify as vegan fare? If not, and
> we both know it doesn't, then your rule for qualifying vegan
> fare is wrong and inconsistent.

If you want to eat road-kill and call yourself a "vegan" then go for
it...

> >Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
> >include human milk as vegan?
>
> That's not my position. My position is that milk does not
> qualify as a vegan food source on the basis that it's an
> animal product.

The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals
without exploiting them in some way.